The Boots We Wear (On Bucket Boots)

[Fox]

A ship believed to be the Speaker has also been found.

[Mad Matt]

So, we're saying there are approximately 5 pirate ship wrecks that have been located?

[hitman]

A few thoughts

Foxe Said,

"First, and I'm not arguing, I'm curious, what wildly improbable things do pirates of today wear?"

Imho this gets to the heart of the matter. Pirates of today do wear wildly impropable things for their time and place why...for fashion's sake. They wear clothes and jewelry not readily availble in their praticular homes because they show wealth. If bucket boots were in fashion for high seas plunders in the GAoP I could see them wearing them despite their limitid practicality. However it appears fashion dictated in this fairly narrow time frame that boots were a faus pas. I can see the fabric and leather of a pirates outfit being above par or even the level of adornments (knives, toilitres etc.) being higher for pirates than merchant seamen but not a complete disregard for the prevailing fashions of the time.

I can't think of any other Pirate ship wrecks to be discovered from the GAoP.

Oh and as a side point of very litte note the GAoP was not the high point of Piracy just the High Point of European Piracy. In truth the high point of Piracy would have been in either China some time before the birth of Christ or the med. during Roman times.

[Fox]

I still wonder about these improbable things worn by modern pirates - the few pictures I've seen show them in jeans and t-shirts, combat jackets, that kinda thing. I mean, if these guys ditched their guns and ammo would they look noticeably different from other people of the China seas area?

<NOTE: I'm not suggesting that the attire of modern pirates has much bearing on the attire of GAoP pirates - the matter is one of private interest>

...but not a complete disregard for the prevailing fashions of the time.

That exactly why I bang my head on the table every time someone brings up the "pirates were free-spirits who would have dressed however they wanted" argument. Thankyou for putting it so succinctly.

On the subject of the other "golden ages" of piracy, I'd like to stick my oar in for English pirates of the first half of the 17thC. People like Sir Henry Mainwaring, Peter Easton, Thomas Salkeld, William Bishop, and the infamous Nutt brothers. Easton at one point was believed to have a fleet of 40 ships in the Irish sea - the RN was not powerful enough to face him - and eventually retired with a fortune and a title. Mainwaring defeated a Spanish squadron in open battle and went on to become an Admiral. Salkeld declared himself King of Lundy. John Nutt was arrested, but had such powerful friends at court that he was able to get the Admiral who arrested him thrown into jail while he walked out.

Of the "known" pirate ships it should be pointed out that only the Whydah has been identified beyond doubt, the others are all (as I understand it) ships of the right size and period in the right place, so are probably the pirates ships in question - but as yet unproven. Not that that has any bearing on the boot question.

[Mad Matt]

Of the "known" pirate ships it should be pointed out that only the Whydah has been identified beyond doubt, the others are all (as I understand it) ships of the right size and period in the right place, so are probably the pirates ships in question - but as yet unproven. Not that that has any bearing on the boot question.

Bearing? Maybe no. But the explanation of only 1 "known" pirate ship, and the others "might be", gives scope to ones understanding when you say:

if any archaeologist turned up a pair of bucket boots from a GAoP era wreck then nobody would argue with it, likewise nobody would argue if any historian turned up a picture or written description of a pirate in bucket boots, but they haven't.

I guess it's a bit difficult for me to understand why people get their panties in a bunch about boots (or anything else for that matter, boots is just the topic, here.) when there are such a limited supply of wreck sites to be explored, is all.

Not trying to flame anyone, just trying to clear up my own confusion.

[Fox]

Personally I think the archaeological record is too limited to disprove anything by itself, but it can be a useful piece of corroborative evidence when taken with the written and pictorial record. It is important to remember too that when dealing with questions about the materiel and fabric of GAoP era sea-life we have far more than 5 pirate ship excavations to go on.

For me what proves that boots (in this case, but insert item <here>) were not commonly worn during the GAoP is that we have hundreds of pictures of seamen from the period, pages and pages of written description, AND the archaeological record - and the evidence of bucket boots is non-existent, the evidence for boots of any kind is sparse and limited, the evidence for an overwhelming preference for shoes is...well... overwhelming. Draw your own conclusions.

So yeah, you're quite right - if 5 wrecks (at least 2 of which were mroe or less emptied of goods before being wrecked) were all we had to go on then it would be ridiculous to try to draw widespread conclusions. BUT we have so much more information about the appearance of pirates and seamen - not just the "few etchings" so many people assume.

[Daniel]

Hey, Petee, did you see this one?

This same picture appears in Angus Konstam's Osprey book Pirates: 1660-1730. It says it represents William Phillips, active off England from 1722 to 1724. The figure of Phillips is wearing bucket boots, and a pirate seated at the left also has them.

Of course, it doesn't prove anything unless it can be traced to the period. Anyone know the origin of this one?

[JoshuaRed]

That's from "The Pirates Own Book", a 19th Century text...circa 1830 I think.

[Daniel]

Alas. Thanks for catching that one quickly, Joshua; it would have been a shame to raise Petee's hopes only to dash them again.

At least that takes some of the onus for the bucket boot image off of poor Howard Pyle, if they were already being shown in boots by 1830.

[hitman]

Foxe,

Check out the watch on the first pirate. I'd belive a nice shiny watch would qualify as improbaple for the area. Well may be not improbaple but definatly not in the budget of your average farmer or fisherman. I'd also guess that these guys are wearing enough cologne to gag a mule. Now my point is not that the moderen day pirates would be wearing Jordans and fubu (little lone at ..."work"???) but that they'd have a better set of clothes than their honest cousins. This may border on making to much of the moderen world but I have often heard (ok read) you say that GAoP sailors looked like GAoP sailors they may have a dress rig for shore going but they'd be better version of their work clothes. I'm willing to bet these guys are the same as I know I work the same. Lets face it the ladies don't know it's pay day if your clothes don't say it right?

[Patrick Hand]

Check out the watch on the first pirate. I'd belive a nice shiny watch would qualify as improbaple for the area. Well may be not improbaple but definatly not in the budget of your average farmer or fisherman.

Or it's a pyrate copy......

"Pissst.... you wanna buy a gen-u-wine Rolex.... cheap......."

I do like the M-203(the granade launcher...) ... Hey, can I carry one of those with my Pyrate stuff.... it's period for Pyrates..........

OK.... not the coffee this time.... but it could be th' rum........

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Ughhh...

Well, if we were applying the accepted (by some) pirate mythology to our south seas modern pirates...

Then they would be wearing Armani suits, Bruno Magli shoes or whatever else that would be considered high fashion.

But remember too, that according to pirate mythology wisdom, these guys are not really in it for the money, they are creating an egalitarian society and thumbing thier noses at the establishment.

And by wearing paramilitary clothing, and bandanas on their head they only make that too clear....

On a slightly different note....

I just wanted to echo Foxe's comments about the archaeological record. It is too limited to prove something where the wreck might be the only place it has been found. But it does support and give credence to what we have found in other places.

We know that pirates wore shoes, and we have found them on a wreck. We know that pirates used dragoon style pistols, and we have found them on a wreck. We know they used grenadoes....etc etc.

There will come a time when those on the "other side" of the debate will come to see the evidence and abandon their positions, due to the fact that if they care passionately about the subject and can only ingnore the evidence for so long.

It may take a while, but hey, I can wait.

GoF

[Pirate Petee]

Hey, Petee, did you see this one?

Yeah, I’ve seen that one too.

Oh believe me I have seen the evidence or lack there of. But my beliefs from what I have seen, I can't deny the many depictions of the bucket or some type of bucket, to say that they were never worn. I could never give an accurate estimate as to how many pirates wore or may have worn boots. Unless green eyes finishes her time machine. Until that day I will stand strong with my hypotheses. "No.....no, it can't be true, I'll never join you."

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Oh yes Pete.... it will happen to you!

And you know, the sooner you give in and join the dark side, the sooner you will actually find the proof you are looking for!

Aint that how it works???

Seriously though....

You are just too passionate about it not to come over!

GoF

[Fox]

I can't deny the many depictions of the bucket or some type of bucket, to say that they were never worn.

Forgive my obvious stupidity; "many depictions"? WHY HAVEN'T YOU SHARED THEM PETEE? We've been treated to early 17thC bucket boots from a coastal wreck, 19thC fishermen in fishing boots, and ONE DEPICTION of some GAoP era seafarers in short soft boots which bear as much resemblance to the popular bucket boot as I do to Brad Pitt.

AND AGAIN, nobody had ever argued that bucket boots weren't worn ever, only that they weren't common. All the evidence collected by Petee supports that hypothesis completely.

I could never give an accurate estimate as to how many pirates wore or may have worn boots.

I like figures. Often when an argument (or debate) goes on for this long people get bogged down in irrelevancies, start going round in circles, start arguing passionately with someone who actually shares their opinion. Figures, while certainly not the be-all-and-end-all, do add a certain amount of clarity, and help to still the muddy waters.

Since we're dealing specifically with the GAoP era I'll limit this to evidence from that period (One might argue that this excludes all Petee's nice 19thC pictures, but a: their relevance is strictly limited, and b: if we included all the 19thC pictures of seafarers available the numbers would be too large for my poor brain to cope with)

I have period pictures of something like 2-300 seamen and officers (let's say 250 as a nice average)

I have written documentation about around 150 individual seamen from the period (wills, probate, written descriptions etc)

I have less specific written documentation about around, oh, I dunno 1,600 seamen of the period. (supply documents mostly - not counting the 70,000 or so men affected by the ASC's)

2 (count 'em, 2) are wearing boots (not bucket boots mind). 2 out of (mentally adding up) 2,000 is 0.1 of one percent, or to put it another way, based on the information available the chances of seeing a seaman in boots during the GAoP would be 1:1,000

The evidence for pirates using crossbows is better FFS!

OK, so what does this mean? Nothing whatsoever. Anyone can come up with figures and statistics if they want to, but it's difficult and dangerous to draw anything much from them. What I'm trying to do here is to put Petee's "many depictions" into perspective.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I hear you Foxe.... but I think what Pete is saying is that

He has seen too many pictures of boots in the eras around the GAoP to give up on them being worn by sailors during the GAoP.

He is on the cusp of realization though.... softly softly.... he will fall in!

Now I know some of you are thinking that Foxe and I are broken records here, that or just "a" holes.

We are not trying to be though. Its just a different approach. Basically its a "don't wear it until you can proove it" approach.... as opposed to a "wear it until I find out otherwise" approach.

GoF

[JoshuaRed]

Nothing wrong with a little tough love. We're all men here (Or women disguised as men. , we can take it, right?

Seriously, this is one of the greatest boards around, and it's because we have such a great bunch here, regardless of yer stance on boots. *cough*bucketbootssuck*cough* KIDDING!! Kidding...c'mon...

[Fox]

@ Josh

I am naturally an a-hole, but I try not to let it show. The reason my response to Petee's post was so... well, whatever it was so... is because I think it's very dangerous to make sweeping comments like "I can't deny the many depictions of the bucket or some type of bucket" without some sort of qualifier.

I'll give you an example. Recently SPC has said a couple of times "Petee has proven that seamen wore boots before and after the GAoP". Anyone reading that statement without reading the rest of the threads (which happenes all too frequently) would take that at its face value, and if true it would be a good argument for the wearing of bucket boots. BUT, it isn't true. Petee has found one pair of boots, which may have been worn by a guy on a boat a century before the GAoP, and half a dozen pictures of some fishermen in boots resembling bucket boots from a century and a half after the GAoP. That's not the same thing as "proving boots were worn either side of the GAoP at all.

Now, on a personal level I'm impressed by Petee's dedication and tenacity, but I can't help feeling the whole thing is fruitless. If Petee wants to prove that one or two seamen during the GAoP wore boots then that's great, but we already believe that. The proof would be great, but it's not something that's even being debated anyway. On the other hand if Petee wants to prove that boots were common at sea during the GAoP then he's got to find dozens of sources to support that - and realistically that just isn't going to happen.

Now, we kinda come back to the old old statement. If you want to do something at a Ren-Faire that isn't historically accurate then go right ahead, I don't give a flying fig. But if you want to claim something is historically accurate when it patently isn't then I'm going to argue. Sorry, that's just the way I am, and nothing but a well constructed argument supported by proper and relevant historical sources will make me back down (which I will happily do, but has anyone noticed that after 22 pages of this thread we still haven't seen any new evidence which we hadn't seen before it started?).

(Question: Why do Ren-Faire participants prefer to be called "Rennies" and not "Faireys"?)

[Pirate Petee]

Sorry for not being clear. What I meant was "that there are too many depictions of the pirate in bucket boots" in general, post GAoP, 19th century, not during. Once again sorry. Oh, and Foxe, your not an A-Hole.

[JoshuaRed]

Sure he is, and that's why we loves him, we does!

I think Petee deserves some serious kudos for generating what is possibly the LONGEST sustained, non-adult-game thread in this Pub! You rock, brother Petee. How about some flair? Petée?

[Fox]

Sorry for not being clear. What I meant was "that there are too many depictions of the pirate in bucket boots" in general, post GAoP, 19th century, not during. Once again sorry. Oh, and Foxe, your not an A-Hole.

See GoF, we both misunderstood

Petee, I am an A-hole, you just don't know me enough to see beyond the delightful, witty and loveable exterior into the bitter and hateful heart that beats within. :)

[Pirate Petee]

Ahhh, I think there is still some good left in you Foxe. Thanks Josh, its crazy how long this post has been going and we haven't even changed it into a mud room or spa or something like that.

[JoshuaRed]

Hell if anything it would become "Petée's Boot Heel" , "Jackboot Pete's" or something like that.

[Pirate Petee]

Hell if anything it would become "Petée's Boot Heel" , "Jackboot Pete's" or something like that.

Sound like cool pub names.

[JoshuaRed]

Hell, I'd drink in' em! As long as the steins aren't shaped like bucket boots..